Monday, October 10


Thus far, I have withheld comment on the recent doings at the Supreme Court--largely because I’ve simply not had enough information about the newest nominee to the court to make much of a judgment one way or the other. Apparently, I am not alone. My dear friend Rod Martin, Chairman of Vanguard PAC, one of America's leading conservative groups, released a press briefing, which expressed extreme disappointment in President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“No one is more grateful for the President’s leadership and conservatism than I am,” said Martin, editor and co-author of last year’s Thank You President Bush: Reflections on the War on Terror, Defense of the Family and Revival of the Economy. “But this appointment is an enormous disappointment, and while we won’t oppose it, we can’t support it.”

Martin went on to assert, “For twenty years, conservatives have waited for this moment to really change the course of the court. They’ve organized, they’ve convinced America, and they’ve won majorities at every level of government. And conservative legal minds have slaved away to become truly exceptional, and our appeals courts are filled with them, in part thanks to George Bush. Now, at the very moment when one of those truly tremendous judges could finally ratify America's elective will--someone we could count on, someone with a track record known to anyone outside the White House inner circle--the President instead appoints someone who’s never been a judge, never left a paper trail, and never given any of us the slightest reason to believe she’ll be the kind of judge who’s worth fighting for.”

He concluded, “I trust George Bush. I believe in George Bush. And I won’t oppose his nominee. But we won’t back her, at least right now; and we call on all conservatives to keep their powder dry until someone gives us at least some reason to do otherwise.”

Interestingly, Martin and Vanguard PAC mobilized tens of thousands of activists across America in support of Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation, and Martin had last week publicly promised to greatly intensify those efforts in support of what he called “a serious conservative nominee like Scalia or Thomas.” At this point, it appears that Harriet Miers is not such a nominee.


Mark Dolan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rick said...

Dear Dr. Grant,

I'd like to share a few thoughts with you as to why I will be very surprised if Harriet Miers turns out to be satifying to conservatives, should she be confirmed. In fact, it seems to me that there is plenty of reason already for not keeping "our powder dry."

Since one of Pres. Bush's stated reasons for nominating Ms. Miers is their shared view of the role of a Supreme Court Justice and her vital role as one of his key advisors, we should be able to examine his record for evidence of the affects of their shared commitment to strict constructionism. Not only do I see no evidence of such a commitment, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Four examples come to mind immediately: (1) his failure to veto even one spending bill, all of which contain egregious examples of unconstitutional spending; (2) his support for expanding Medicare (which was already patently unconstitutional); (3) his appointment of William Pryor as a federal judge in spite of his prosecution of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (where Moore clearly held the strict constructionist view); and (4) his failure to interpose on behalf of Terry Schiavo (where one who really understands and is commited to a strict constructionist view would have recognized not only his authority, but also his obligation, to prevent her murder).

I suppose it is possible that behind closed doors, Ms. Miers has urged Pres. Bush to take a strict constructionist view on these and other matters, but that they both concluded to wait until she was firmly installed on the Supreme Court before they both let their true colors show, but I doubt it.

Steve W. Prost said...

Go to for the best analysis on the web from a conservative perspective... make no mistake, HM will serve to be the greatest betrayal of conservatives and evangelicals in political history if she becomes confirmed, and this is guaranteed to become clear when she fails to join Scalia and Thomas' dissenting opinions in Ayotte next year, which will signal that while she is willing to uphold limited regs on abortion (parental notification) she will not overturn Roe, and then you will all wish you had not been so calm and "reasonable" in "waiting and seeing" how she turns out.